Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to give him a Blue Badge. He also complains about the way the Council handled the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and information provided by the Council. This includes Mr X’s letters to the Council and medical evidence, his application and the mobility assessment report. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Blue badge government guidance

5. People qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking or are at serious risk of harm when walking. These problems can include considerable psychological distress while walking. The guidance says councils should ask for evidence and the applicant must demonstrate that their difficulties mean they cannot access goods and services. The guidance does not say that everyone with a mental health problem, or a hidden disability, will qualify for a badge.
6. People qualify for a badge if they receive descriptor E of a benefit called Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Descriptor E says the person cannot undertake a journey due to overwhelming psychological distress.

What happened

7. Mr X applied for a badge in September 2019. He said he was applying on the basis of mental health. He explained he has severe anxiety and depression and he provided evidence that he had been awarded PIP (descriptor D) in June 2019.
8. The Council did a mobility assessment and found that Mr X had no significant physical problems with walking. Mr X provided information about his mental health and his medication. He said he has a Freedom Pass but finds it hard to use public transport when it is busy. He said he needs to be accompanied on unfamiliar journeys. He said he works for 10 hours a week in a supermarket. He said a badge would allow him to drive more and avoid using public transport.
9. Mr X provided medical evidence. The psychiatrist declined to provide any information because Mr X had been discharged in 2015. Mr X provided some letters from the mental health team which were written before 2015. The letters do not say Mr X experiences overwhelming distress when walking. Mr X also provided a summary of contact with his GP. This confirmed his mental health problems but showed little contact with the GP since 2016.
10. The Council decided Mr X does not qualify for a badge and it confirmed this decision after carrying out a review. It noted that Mr X’s PIP award does not passport him to a badge and there was no medical evidence to show he suffers from overwhelming psychological distress when walking. The Council apologised for some minor errors. For example, there had been some confusion over whether Mr X could have an appeal or a review and in one letter the Council used the wrong date for the application. In addition, the Council said it had overlooked the evidence from Mr X’s GP when it initially refused the application.

Assessment

11. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and it is not my role to decide if Mr X qualifies for a badge. I can only consider if the Council assessed the application correctly.
12. The Council assessed Mr X’s application from a physical and mental health perspective. It noted what Mr X said about his problems, and noted his medication and medical history. It also considered his PIP award. It noted that Mr X is not currently receiving any treatment, other than medication, and there is no expert, medical evidence stating that he suffers from overwhelming psychological distress when walking. It is also the case that in June 2019 the tribunal did not award descriptor E which is the descriptor for people who experience overwhelming distress when walking.
13. The Council considered all the relevant evidence but decided Mr X does not qualify for a badge. There is no suggestion of fault and the decision is consistent with the government guidance and the tribunal decision.
14. There were some minor errors in the handling of the application but this does not require an investigation. For example, there was confusion over the review process but the Council did do a review. The Council also, initially, disregarded the evidence from the GP. But, I have seen evidence which shows the Council considered this information as part of the review so this omission has not had any bearing on the decision about entitlement.
15. Mr X says the Council did not tell him that PIP descriptor E is a passport to getting a badge. But, as he does not get this descriptor this had no bearing on his application. In addition, the application form asks people to send evidence of the descriptor they receive so the Council can assess if the person qualifies by this route.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman